Quote Originally Posted by columbus View Post
This seems like a simple concept to me. Most ancient literature was fiction. They simply didn't have modern standards of journalism, so they didn't expect literature to be either literally true or else labelled fiction, the way we modern people do. And, of course, the Bible isn't one work of literature it a library of different works all bound together. Some of them were legends, some historical, and some theological treatises. All of the authors had agendas. It is possible that at least some of them were trying to accurately convey events they had evidence happened. But it is more likely that none of them did. This explains the various contradictions. From simple and clear disagreements about Jesus' ancestry to the enormously diverging images of god presented, it is obvious that the various authors were writing from their own human perspective.
Clearly the Bible is the historical genre of a biography and autobiography. There is no disagreement about the lineage of Jesus, you've just somehow deluded yourself. Trying to back up what you say. Try to address the opening post.

A large group of fallible humans invented the Bible as they went along, so they made mistakes. They weren't lying, they were just writing what they wanted written and they weren't capable of describing reality because they didn't know much about it. They described an earth that is flat and about 6,000 years old. They described a god who varied enormously. This description of god varies from the physical being in Genesis to the invisible god of Moses to the ineffable god of the New Testament. God has continued to progress toward non-existence since the Council of Nicea(another group of fallible humans) ossified an image of god in a canon. But even then, Martin Luther came along and upset the RCC applecart, which was the official "Christianity" for about a thousand years. Nowadays, we have Christians like Spong taking God yet a bit further from the ancient god described in Genesis.
The Bible describes an earth that is round, for one ship fairer looked across the ocean to see it had curvature. And the 6000 years wasn't the creation of the earth but referred to when the first God-conscious man came into being. God has the ability to enter His creation to make himself physically seen, but it is the Father that we usually can never see because the Father agreed with the Son and the Spirit the Son enters His creation. It's true no one can look upon the Father. However there was that one time in the Bible the three men came to Abram who were the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, so it seems there is an exception even to this rule. God is flexible with His design. This should not be hard to accept since it is God's prerogative to enter His creation after all He created it. God was treated as non-existent? Where? Spong and Luther were probably not saved because they were Calvinists. In other words, they refused to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated, to have a genuine faith and repentance. Instead pridefully they declared they were irresistibly selected and billions were preteritioned. What love is that? The Roman Church initially was alright, but soon became corrupted. It was never the official Church. Revelation 2 describes this Thyatira church period which is still with us today and Revelation 17 describes this woman who rides the beast. She makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (Rev. 14.8). So you can see the Bible is way ahead of you. The official Church the Bible calls a "little flock" (Luke 12.32). One here, a few there, a couple over there. That's the truth. The Roman Church is like a mustard seed that grows into a great tree not of its kind, and birds like demons land on her branches.

"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof" (Matt. 13.31-32). It became unnatural.

The evidence that they didn't really distinguish between historical and mythical is very easy to find. But you have to want to see the truth or you won't.

The first book of the Bible, Genesis, starts with two different and mutually exclusive creation stories. I believe that is a statement from the redactors of Genesis, "Don't take this too seriously as literal truth". The authors of the Bible themselves did not believe in It as literal truth.
What's important here is that you couldn't show any mythical. It's clearly the historical genre of biography. It all speaks personally of their real experiences, setting up the churches, writing letters to each other and so forth, building the Church, the body of Christ. You don't have to want to see this to be true, just give into the evidence. There is not two different creation stories, you're just misreading. Genesis 2 gives the details of Genesis 1 just like Rev. 12 to 19 give the details of the major points of Rev. 11 to 17. All the Bible writers believed in the literal interpretation. Genesis 1.1 was the perfect creation. It doesn't say how long it took only that it did take. The six days are the restoration of creation. The six days sum up the vast period of restoration likely that goes all the way back to 65 million years when the dinosaurs were destroyed.

You've admitted there are many truths written, many archaeological associations. I have heard there are as many as 25,000 archaeological finds related to the Bible. There are so many problems with your embellishments theory. The original disciples claimed to have spent those three years with Jesus from the beginning that these were their real experiences of the original disciples. If this was an embellishment Jesus would have been added in later or the resurrection eyewitness accounts would have been added later. Paul claimed to have seen Jesus. James claimed to have seen Jesus. In short, the evidence from the disciples contradicts the embellishment theory. What's even better, we could grant you all kinds of legend and embellishments and it would not infringe on the Minimal Facts Approach, the data most skeptics concede which lead inextricably to the resurrection of Jesus. There is just no evidence to support a non-historical genre and there it stands. You would have to throw out all of history if you take your approach which is highly belligerent and obnoxious. So since no historian takes your approach you can be considered of no account. Besides, you need evidence if you want to be a critic. Basically there are no scholars or historians on the Bible who hold your belief, so you are on your own all by yourself.

Please be kind and address the points made in the opening post. This is how to be personal, is you address what the other person says.